I have learned from experience, that artists as whole can be divided into two basic groups:
- those, who make research before working;
- and those, who rely on own imagination and creativity.
Personally, I believe that good art deserves at least minimum of proper research to make it look convincing, thus while drawing certain object, I tend to depict as many details as possible. It is really nice, when the audience is capable of identifying stuff included in your work, because that is the way bounds between artists and audience are created. Naturally demanding knowledge about anything from people is simply impossible, still common access to the Internet allows checking anything necessary. Least in theory.

What I do have a problem with are supercilious individuals, who apparently behave as if they had monopoly for knowledge - when you write those people logically reasonable comments, they at best play ignorance card, or treat you like intruder with unnecessary hostility in worse cases. DeviantART has always been filled with such self-important people, but sadly those can be found here as well. One example is here http://www.fanart-central.net/pictures/user/Xx_Noir2244_xX/851967/Shadow-Boom - notice the artist's reaction to my comment, looks like scorn developed from jealousy under the veil of silly comment. Just because I provided the drawing's author fine opinions about their works, she read friendly advice as violent assault upon her self-importance.

This topic is not intended to stigmatize anyone, but one could ask, if such show of haughtiness is really a sign of artistic skills. Myself, I do not see anything wrong in exchanging experiences with others - such way is also good for self-improvement. Or at least better than manifesting arrogance.

Considering oneself as deity inside mortals will not equal mastery in art.

I think there is value to doing research in order to make a picture look more "natural," or if you are aiming to portray something from a specific real-world timeframe, but art can be enjoyable and good quality without needing to be perfectly based on real-world references, as well. For myself I will look up references if I am particularly anxious to do my best on a particular picture, or not confident in how well I can draw a certain type of object, but I'm also ok with fudging things here and there for some of my pictures, though, as long as I feel I can get the effect or general look of what I'm doing to come out similar to how I visualized it in my head. I understand that different styles and tactics work well for different people, and it can be nice to hear more about a topic I'm drawing whether or not I plan to use the data on my current projects!

...It is possible I'm misinterpreting, but to me Noir doesn't seem like she thinks she has a monopoly on knowledge, but rather like - she isn't the sort of person who has a policy of always thinking details through, and is happy with how her picture came out regardless of which kind of pistol it most looks like? "I just drew a basic pistol" seems less like a research is terrible sort of comment than a case of the artist having been aiming for a generalized look rather than a specific model, and the typed laughter at the end seems similar to the habit many young people have of using laughter-abbreviations or smiley faces in an effort to lighten the mood if they are unsure how their words will be taken in plain text, rather than necessarily being a mocking thing? Looking at the photo she has on her profile, she does seem like she may be on the young side. It is possible my assumptions are incorrect, but her words and the context aren't such that I would have automatically thought that she was "playing" at ignorance or displaying hostility.

I think there is value to doing research in order to make a picture look more "natural," or if you are aiming to portray something from a specific real-world timeframe, but art can be enjoyable and good quality without needing to be perfectly based on real-world references, as well.

Agreed, when you draw fantasy and sci-fi stuff, it's often unnecessary to follow shapes known from the real world. The same applies to abstract art, since it's oriented towards open visual language of shapes, forms and colors.

Firiel wrote:

For myself I will look up references if I am particularly anxious to do my best on a particular picture, or not confident in how well I can draw a certain type of object, but I'm also ok with fudging things here and there for some of my pictures, though, as long as I feel I can get the effect or general look of what I'm doing to come out similar to how I visualized it in my head. I understand that different styles and tactics work well for different people, and it can be nice to hear more about a topic I'm drawing whether or not I plan to use the data on my current projects!

We can agree here as well.

Firiel wrote:

...It is possible I'm misinterpreting, but to me Noir doesn't seem like she thinks she has a monopoly on knowledge, but rather like - she isn't the sort of person who has a policy of always thinking details through, and is happy with how her picture came out regardless of which kind of pistol it most looks like? "I just drew a basic pistol" seems less like a research is terrible sort of comment than a case of the artist having been aiming for a generalized look rather than a specific model, and the typed laughter at the end seems similar to the habit many young people have of using laughter-abbreviations or smiley faces in an effort to lighten the mood if they are unsure how their words will be taken in plain text, rather than necessarily being a mocking thing?

What one person takes for lightening the mood, the second party may read as show of haughtiness and despise. I'm unsure about savoir-vivre in the West, but here, in Central Europe, laughing as response towards stance of the opposite party is commonly understood as sign of mocking your opponent - In other words, the scheme looks like this: "Your argument sounds so funny that I'm going to laugh it over !"

Firiel wrote:

Looking at the photo she has on her profile, she does seem like she may be on the young side. It is possible my assumptions are incorrect, but her words and the context aren't such that I would have automatically thought that she was "playing" at ignorance or displaying hostility.

Still, since she dislikes sophisticated comments that much, she should've written that in direct words rather than showing off hostility under the veil of joke. Just because savior-vivre in her Canadian homeland remains on rather low level, it doesn't mean people from other parts of the world (me for example) will automatically behave like dorks in hillbilly market.

...Ok, cultural differences on use of laughter, whether typed or in person. I'll try to make a mental note of that in case it comes up in future online conversations.

"Queen of Chaos" reads as an inflated ego thing to you? I guess it could be read that way, but again, my first assumptions tend to be different... For example, I think of a woman I know who used to refer to herself as "Supreme Commander" as a joking reference to a story she and her friends used to be writing, and a young boy who went by "Prince Rather Dashing" not because he thought he was royal or exceptionally good-looking but because at the time he created his account on the forum we were on, it was a name idea which amused him. So I tend to take overly grand-sounding titles in screen names with a grain of salt.

Since the thread is officially about details and reference in drawings, perhaps I should talk some more on that topic in this post instead of just discussing possible interpretations of online people's behaviors?

What resources do you use to look up the details you need to know? A lot of times if I can't find something in my personal photos I'll rummage around with search engines, but sometimes that doesn't work - like with my Narnia picture of the girls and Aslan, I already had the lion outlined in permanent media before I drew in the girls, and I was having trouble finding a photo online of people sitting at the right angle to use as body doubles. I wound up using local ref for that - got permission from a lady at my mother's church to copy from photos of her kids straddling a bench to be able to get the exact body angle to match the lion. But I'm not always sure where to look if I can't find something in my photos, my house, or online - is it weird to call up a friend and ask if they'll model for you? Or to make concept sketched from merchandise at a local store?

[...] is it weird to call up a friend and ask if they'll model for you? Or to make concept sketched from merchandise at a local store?

- As long as that friend is willing to help, it's fine. Sketching merchandise as reference shouldn't be copyright violation - after all, you're depicting an object and it's your own depiction.

In my opinion, photographs make best available reference for drawings - they're easy to find in Google and allow you controlling the progress in details.
Another example would be this one http://www.fanart-central.net/pictures/user/TeeJay87/848330/Pussycat-Fighting-Vehicle---Completed-Version , where I did use photographs of the depicted infantry fighting vehicle as reference. Couple of my pen friends from America are US Army veterans from mechanized divisions and military historians - having been presented the picture, they all agreed that I've depicted the IFV as it looks.